Forgive me for being a returning member who has lost touch with current events in Atlasia. Can someone please explain to me why this Constitutional Convention is being held at all?

I read the constitution currently in effect today, and it seems to have worked just fine for several years. I am failing to understand the reasons behind this movement to re-write it.

I oppose any plan which calls for universal membership in a lower house, or that calls for a prime minister elected by the legislative bodies. The President (Prime Minister, whatever) should continue to be elected directly by the voters. I would urge delegates to this Convention to vote for no changes to the constitution.

It is being changed because it has failed to maintain the level of activity needed to make this game fun. Countless members are wholly inactive, elections (other than for President or the occasional Senate seat) are barely contested and hardly competitive, and more often than not interest grinds to a standstill. There are periods when the Senate appears to shut down. A majority of the regions can be considered dead. Party politics is limited to foolish name-calling.

Admirable objectives, but I still don't see how any of the proposals being offered accomplishes them. People will come and go all the time (case in point:me). As I recall from my active days here when I was the SoFA, the most fun and highly participated in event of this game is the presidential elections. And now, you have proposals that would completely eliminate presidential elections! This will have the opposite effect you are trying to achieve.

But hey, I know I'm jumping in on something that's been going on for a while. Carry on with your convention.

Admirable objectives, but I still don't see how any of the proposals being offered accomplishes them. People will come and go all the time (case in point:me). As I recall from my active days here when I was the SoFA, the most fun and highly participated in event of this game is the presidential elections. And now, you have proposals that would completely eliminate presidential elections! This will have the opposite effect you are trying to achieve.

But hey, I know I'm jumping in on something that's been going on for a while. Carry on with your convention.

I believe that every proposal has a nationally elected President, as well as other elected offices similar to the Senate. The point is to maintain the election structure while improving the government aspect. There are no concrete ideas formed yet, so everything is open for input and debate. I would recommend you participate and help out in the Convention. We can always use extra voices. Nor do I have a problem with the normal ebb and flow of the membership. But we have 60 people voting in elections and far fewer total seats in public office. Those elections should be competitive. People need to want to participate.

Admirable objectives, but I still don't see how any of the proposals being offered accomplishes them. People will come and go all the time (case in point:me). As I recall from my active days here when I was the SoFA, the most fun and highly participated in event of this game is the presidential elections. And now, you have proposals that would completely eliminate presidential elections! This will have the opposite effect you are trying to achieve.

But hey, I know I'm jumping in on something that's been going on for a while. Carry on with your convention.

I believe that every proposal has a nationally elected President, as well as other elected offices similar to the Senate. The point is to maintain the election structure while improving the government aspect. There are no concrete ideas formed yet, so everything is open for input and debate. I would recommend you participate and help out in the Convention. We can always use extra voices. Nor do I have a problem with the normal ebb and flow of the membership. But we have 60 people voting in elections and far fewer total seats in public office. Those elections should be competitive. People need to want to participate.

To add to this post, people have suggested that there is a lack of fun, for need of a better word, in the government that causes most people to want to leave after a certain time. As Brandon H said back in December, people who assume office very quickly often cease to be active within a year of joining Atlasia. I could look for the quote if someone wants.

Having revisited the proposals currently on the table, I re-iterate my objections to any change to the current constitution. Amend it if needed, but don't just start over.

While I realize there are many participants who are not Americans, I believe the purpose of this game is to simulate American politics. This site is dedicated primarily to United States presidential elections (this is uselectionatlas.org). I strongly object to the usage of terms such as "Parliament" and "Prime Minister". That game will simulate British/Canadian style politics, rather than US, and it is my belief that such a game will not attract as many new participants as the current game does. Someone posted that we set a new record for votes cast in the current election. It seems the current game does attract new players.

I could perhaps go along with universalism, if the majority of Atlasians feel this is a good and needed change, and no major structural changes to the Presidency are made, and no titles are employed that are not found in use in the USA.

I don't mean to be difficult, really, but I have to express my feelings about this. I presume any proposal passed by this Convention will be put before the voters. I will likely vote no, and I hope that others will join me.

I really don't like the idea of having PM and such, but I am going with the flow. If it was up to me I would reduce the regions to three, cut the senate to 6 members and make a House of representatives of 12 members.

There is certainly room to maneuver on names and titles. There is also a form out there that would allow Dan's idea (Parliamentary Bicameralism is that).

The current system is not really American either. What I am looking for is taking the best of every type of democratic government. Contribute to whichever of the proposals you feel could best be made into what you want and then submit an article as you would like to see it.

The proposals have flexibility, so feel free to make things happen. I encourage you to do so.

Having revisited the proposals currently on the table, I re-iterate my objections to any change to the current constitution. Amend it if needed, but don't just start over.

While I realize there are many participants who are not Americans, I believe the purpose of this game is to simulate American politics. This site is dedicated primarily to United States presidential elections (this is uselectionatlas.org). I strongly object to the usage of terms such as "Parliament" and "Prime Minister". That game will simulate British/Canadian style politics, rather than US, and it is my belief that such a game will not attract as many new participants as the current game does. Someone posted that we set a new record for votes cast in the current election. It seems the current game does attract new players.

I could perhaps go along with universalism, if the majority of Atlasians feel this is a good and needed change, and no major structural changes to the Presidency are made, and no titles are employed that are not found in use in the USA.

I don't mean to be difficult, really, but I have to express my feelings about this. I presume any proposal passed by this Convention will be put before the voters. I will likely vote no, and I hope that others will join me.

Agreed.

As a newbie to Atlasia, I may be able to provide a different perspective than many of the delegates. Fritz is right, the system must be based off the United States' system. Whether you think this system is superior to a parliamentary system or not, the site as a whole is dedicated to US elections, therefore those who will consider joining Atlasia will be primarily interested in US politics (sorry foreigners, but that is the truth).

While I'm here, I would like to make a few suggestions (if I am going too far here as a non-delegate, let me know):

1. Perhaps have senatorial elections every four months, thus making them stand for reelection three times a year.

2. Have a more active GM (I doubt anything about this can be done here, except for a way to remove an inactive GM).

3. Reduce the number of regions (this has been stated many times in this convention).

4. Put the rules for how a party operates in the constitution. This is a game, so this is reasonable. I believe that more structured parties would increase party activity, intra-party conflict, regular conventions, etc.

5. Perhaps have a more powerful speaker of the house/senate, though NO prime minister as he/she would make the presidency obsolete. Perhaps give this individual more legislative control and responsibility. This would increase the parties' interest in winning legislative seats.

From what I have read recently in this convention, it seems to be heading in the right direction- I think the delegates have by and large agreed that we can't have a Parliament and Prime Minister. For now, I'm keeping my mouth shut and waiting to see what they come up with.

The only proposal currently enlisting much activity is actually more US-based than our current system, with a bicameral legislature, etc. And NOTA will be an option in any vote on the proposals, so don't start ringing alarm bells just yet.

The only proposal currently enlisting much activity is actually more US-based than our current system, with a bicameral legislature, etc. And NOTA will be an option in any vote on the proposals, so don't start ringing alarm bells just yet.

From what I have read recently in this convention, it seems to be heading in the right direction- I think the delegates have by and large agreed that we can't have a Parliament and Prime Minister. For now, I'm keeping my mouth shut and waiting to see what they come up with.

Having revisited the proposals currently on the table, I re-iterate my objections to any change to the current constitution. Amend it if needed, but don't just start over.

While I realize there are many participants who are not Americans, I believe the purpose of this game is to simulate American politics. This site is dedicated primarily to United States presidential elections (this is uselectionatlas.org). I strongly object to the usage of terms such as "Parliament" and "Prime Minister". That game will simulate British/Canadian style politics, rather than US, and it is my belief that such a game will not attract as many new participants as the current game does. Someone posted that we set a new record for votes cast in the current election. It seems the current game does attract new players.

I could perhaps go along with universalism, if the majority of Atlasians feel this is a good and needed change, and no major structural changes to the Presidency are made, and no titles are employed that are not found in use in the USA.

I don't mean to be difficult, really, but I have to express my feelings about this. I presume any proposal passed by this Convention will be put before the voters. I will likely vote no, and I hope that others will join me.

Agreed.

As a newbie to Atlasia, I may be able to provide a different perspective than many of the delegates. Fritz is right, the system must be based off the United States' system. Whether you think this system is superior to a parliamentary system or not, the site as a whole is dedicated to US elections, therefore those who will consider joining Atlasia will be primarily interested in US politics (sorry foreigners, but that is the truth).

While I'm here, I would like to make a few suggestions (if I am going too far here as a non-delegate, let me know):

1. Perhaps have senatorial elections every four months, thus making them stand for reelection three times a year.

2. Have a more active GM (I doubt anything about this can be done here, except for a way to remove an inactive GM).

3. Reduce the number of regions (this has been stated many times in this convention).

4. Put the rules for how a party operates in the constitution. This is a game, so this is reasonable. I believe that more structured parties would increase party activity, intra-party conflict, regular conventions, etc.

5. Perhaps have a more powerful speaker of the house/senate, though NO prime minister as he/she would make the presidency obsolete. Perhaps give this individual more legislative control and responsibility. This would increase the parties' interest in winning legislative seats.

You make some good points but I am in complete disagreement on #3. In my view decreasing the regions can make our problems much worse. Personally now with the movement in Atlasia growing strong for reform this Convention probably could have waited to see what could come of the normal process. However at the time we thought no change was possible out of the the existing power structures. Lets say we decrease the number of regions, and the number of positions. For about 6 months we get a huge boost in activity through more competative elections. Then the dust settles down and you have fewer offices to run for and the chance for people who are unwilling to run against other office holders leave the game cause of the limited opportunity for advancement. Plus any attempt to reduce the regions will meet heavy opposition and likely drown any thing that comes out of this convention.

Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!

Having revisited the proposals currently on the table, I re-iterate my objections to any change to the current constitution. Amend it if needed, but don't just start over.

While I realize there are many participants who are not Americans, I believe the purpose of this game is to simulate American politics. This site is dedicated primarily to United States presidential elections (this is uselectionatlas.org). I strongly object to the usage of terms such as "Parliament" and "Prime Minister". That game will simulate British/Canadian style politics, rather than US, and it is my belief that such a game will not attract as many new participants as the current game does. Someone posted that we set a new record for votes cast in the current election. It seems the current game does attract new players.

I could perhaps go along with universalism, if the majority of Atlasians feel this is a good and needed change, and no major structural changes to the Presidency are made, and no titles are employed that are not found in use in the USA.

I don't mean to be difficult, really, but I have to express my feelings about this. I presume any proposal passed by this Convention will be put before the voters. I will likely vote no, and I hope that others will join me.

Agreed.

As a newbie to Atlasia, I may be able to provide a different perspective than many of the delegates. Fritz is right, the system must be based off the United States' system. Whether you think this system is superior to a parliamentary system or not, the site as a whole is dedicated to US elections, therefore those who will consider joining Atlasia will be primarily interested in US politics (sorry foreigners, but that is the truth).

While I'm here, I would like to make a few suggestions (if I am going too far here as a non-delegate, let me know):

1. Perhaps have senatorial elections every four months, thus making them stand for reelection three times a year.

2. Have a more active GM (I doubt anything about this can be done here, except for a way to remove an inactive GM).

3. Reduce the number of regions (this has been stated many times in this convention).

4. Put the rules for how a party operates in the constitution. This is a game, so this is reasonable. I believe that more structured parties would increase party activity, intra-party conflict, regular conventions, etc.

5. Perhaps have a more powerful speaker of the house/senate, though NO prime minister as he/she would make the presidency obsolete. Perhaps give this individual more legislative control and responsibility. This would increase the parties' interest in winning legislative seats.

You make some good points but I am in complete disagreement on #3. In my view decreasing the regions can make our problems much worse. Personally now with the movement in Atlasia growing strong for reform this Convention probably could have waited to see what could come of the normal process. However at the time we thought no change was possible out of the the existing power structures. Lets say we decrease the number of regions, and the number of positions. For about 6 months we get a huge boost in activity through more competative elections. Then the dust settles down and you have fewer offices to run for and the chance for people who are unwilling to run against other office holders leave the game cause of the limited opportunity for advancement. Plus any attempt to reduce the regions will meet heavy opposition and likely drown any thing that comes out of this convention.

You're probably right about #3. Upon reflection I realize that, while good in theory, it probably would have too many negative unintended consequences tied to it.

Having revisited the proposals currently on the table, I re-iterate my objections to any change to the current constitution. Amend it if needed, but don't just start over.

While I realize there are many participants who are not Americans, I believe the purpose of this game is to simulate American politics. This site is dedicated primarily to United States presidential elections (this is uselectionatlas.org). I strongly object to the usage of terms such as "Parliament" and "Prime Minister". That game will simulate British/Canadian style politics, rather than US, and it is my belief that such a game will not attract as many new participants as the current game does. Someone posted that we set a new record for votes cast in the current election. It seems the current game does attract new players.

I could perhaps go along with universalism, if the majority of Atlasians feel this is a good and needed change, and no major structural changes to the Presidency are made, and no titles are employed that are not found in use in the USA.

I don't mean to be difficult, really, but I have to express my feelings about this. I presume any proposal passed by this Convention will be put before the voters. I will likely vote no, and I hope that others will join me.

Agreed.

As a newbie to Atlasia, I may be able to provide a different perspective than many of the delegates. Fritz is right, the system must be based off the United States' system. Whether you think this system is superior to a parliamentary system or not, the site as a whole is dedicated to US elections, therefore those who will consider joining Atlasia will be primarily interested in US politics (sorry foreigners, but that is the truth).

While I'm here, I would like to make a few suggestions (if I am going too far here as a non-delegate, let me know):

1. Perhaps have senatorial elections every four months, thus making them stand for reelection three times a year.

2. Have a more active GM (I doubt anything about this can be done here, except for a way to remove an inactive GM).

3. Reduce the number of regions (this has been stated many times in this convention).

4. Put the rules for how a party operates in the constitution. This is a game, so this is reasonable. I believe that more structured parties would increase party activity, intra-party conflict, regular conventions, etc.

5. Perhaps have a more powerful speaker of the house/senate, though NO prime minister as he/she would make the presidency obsolete. Perhaps give this individual more legislative control and responsibility. This would increase the parties' interest in winning legislative seats.

You make some good points but I am in complete disagreement on #3. In my view decreasing the regions can make our problems much worse. Personally now with the movement in Atlasia growing strong for reform this Convention probably could have waited to see what could come of the normal process. However at the time we thought no change was possible out of the the existing power structures. Lets say we decrease the number of regions, and the number of positions. For about 6 months we get a huge boost in activity through more competative elections. Then the dust settles down and you have fewer offices to run for and the chance for people who are unwilling to run against other office holders leave the game cause of the limited opportunity for advancement. Plus any attempt to reduce the regions will meet heavy opposition and likely drown any thing that comes out of this convention.

You're probably right about #3. Upon reflection I realize that, while good in theory, it probably would have too many negative unintended consequences tied to it.

The best way to increase activity is to create competative elections, that I agree with. The best way in my opinion to achieve that is massive growth in the number of active civilians of Atlasia. Lets try to get more forumers to come into the game, entice the some of the old lions back, and try to encourage the newbies to join as well. It will be hard to get that many new members with less offices.

Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!

The best way to increase activity is to create competative elections, that I agree with. The best way in my opinion to achieve that is massive growth in the number of active civilians of Atlasia. Lets try to get more forumers to come into the game, entice the some of the old lions back, and try to encourage the newbies to join as well. It will be hard to get that many new members with less offices.

Indeed. I personally would not have joined had Senator Pit not asked me to. This is meaningless here in the ConCon, but if we could get some of the more experienced members to actively recruit those on the forum, I suspect we would have an uptick in registered, and active, Atlasian voters.